R-E-S-P-E-C-T
link

I've been sick the past couple of days. Sick enough to miss work and to skip trying to work on paperwork from home. I think the antibiotics are beginning to work, as I'm feeling a bit better this evening. One of the things I missed at work today was a training seminar on "Managing for Respect". There was even a homework assignment to be completed prior to the event entitled "Encouraging Respect". It may have been a good thing I was sick today, as I have a real problem with the whole idea.

The problem I have is that I believe words have meaning. I believe you don't get to change the meaning just because it is convenient for you (and yes, I know that meanings drift over time, but that's not what I'm talking about). "Respect" is about feelings of esteem, or holding someone or something in high regard. I realize this is not a politically correct thing to say, but there aren't very many people in this world I respect. Different people for different reasons. Some of my co-workers, but certainly not all. And in 25 years in corrections, I don't think there have been more than a half dozen or so clients I had any respect for at all (and that is probably being generous). The point is that respect is not something you give, it is something that is earned. I just don't believe that everyone in the world should have my respect just because they are a unique individual, and I'm certainly not in the mood to respect everyone I work with just because someone decided I should.

The flip side of this point is that there is no excuse for being un-civil or uncivilized in interactions with others. And while I am generally pessimistic about human beings in general, I am always open to the possibility that individual people may exceed my expectations. While I may not respect a person I'm interacting with, there is rarely any reason to be disrespectful. There is also no reason to eliminate the possibility that they may earn my respect. It seems to me that the people who put this little seminar together have confused respect with civilized interaction.

This is, of course, at some level, splitting semantic hairs, but I think this is really important. If the people who are concerned with my workplace decorum and interactions mean that I should be polite, considerate, attentive and genuinely involved in meaningful interaction with those around me, then I'm all for it. But if that is what they mean, then they should say that, instead of corrupting or euphemizing a perfectly good word that means something different because it is more convenient than saying "polite, considerate, attentive and genuinely involved in meaningful interaction" or has a more contemporary (and, I guess, less judgmental) feel than saying "civilized behavior".

If, on the other hand, those who are concerned with my workplace decorum and interactions really do mean that I should respect everyone I deal with, then they may as well fire me now. Mandating how I interact in the workplace is fine. Mandating what I am supposed to think and feel is not.

Now, I know there are people out there who will say that you can't treat people appropriately if you don't respect them. And I think that is pure nonsense, but nonsense that is part and parcel of the general trend toward polarization in our society. That argument makes the assumption that there are only two possible states available: respect and disrespect and that there is nothing in-between. I don't see it that way.

I've been thinking about this for the last two days (albeit while medicated). I'm not sure why I'm so wound up about it, other than I've had too much time on my hands. It may be because I see the whole thing as kind of a kindergarten approach (nice boys and girls should like everyone) to a complex social interaction (how do we function effectively in a correctional setting with people who often aren't very nice and have done some really despicable things). I wasn't even going to write about it, but as is often the case, the only way for me to purge the idea is to write it. And, I just couldn't shake the idea that it was somehow related to the idea that what we are sorely lacking today is civilized discourse. I seems to me that if we were a bit more accomplished in the art and skill of civilized discourse, we wouldn't be in the position of trying to mandate respect in order to be able to function in our daily lives.

I have mentioned in the past that I am a fan of bloggers who are able to communicate their ideas without bitterness and name-calling (even though I am not always entirely successful at avoiding those traits myself). I routinely point to the Smedley Log as an example. Today, while I was mulling this over, I ran into a few other sites that seem to champion the same idea. Via Instapundit, I found the Bird's Eye View, which led me to Sophistpundit and his Fight for Sane Discussion post, which led me to a post on Sharp as Marbles, and a post at Vulgar Morality which has an interesting reference to Karl Popper (even though I obviously don't buy the part about about if I respect the argument, I must respect the person making the argument).

Like I said, I was medicated and had too much time on my hands.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Wednesday, March 16 2005 08:35:24 PM

More on Responsibility
link

Lest anyone get the idea (after some of my offhand comments yesterday) that I am a shill for corporate America, I probably should clear some things up. I am anything but a fan of Corporate America, and the problem I have with it is the same problem I have with individual America: the lack of anything remotely resembling personal responsibility.

Maybe it is just me, but I operate in a professional world (a correctional facility) where if something goes wrong with my staff, it is my responsibility. I am OK with that, because if one of the staff do something wrong, it IS my responsibility. Either I didn't ensure adequate training or adequate supervision. Or I haven't done enough to promote organizational values. Occasionally it is because an evil, misogynistic or racist jerk slips through my hiring process. In any case, it is my responsibility to promote the ethical values that are necessary in our environment. And when we find a problem, it is my job to make sure it gets taken care of promptly and in accordance with ethical standards. In order to have that happen I have to have an organizational culture that isn't based on catching people doing things wrong (which promotes hiding problems). I have to have an organizational culture that is based on identifying problems so we can fix them as part of the growth and training process.

I realize that there are different pressures in the private sector that don't apply to governmental organizations, but management principles are management principles. See, I believe that there is a right way to do business. It involves the understanding that it isn't what you make or what you do that makes your organization, it is your people. And there is plenty of evidence out there that you can do right by your people and still be competitive and profitable (see anything by Tom Peters, Peter Senge or any of a dozen other management gurus out there).

I've been watching the WorldCom trial. The situation with Bernie Ebbers just infuriates me. On the one hand, if he knew about the accounting irregularities, he deserves whatever he gets. On the other hand, here's a guy who in 1999 was making a shade under a million dollars a year and accepted bonuses of $4.8 million dollars. And on top of that, somewhere along the line, there was the "roughly half-billion dollars in loans and loan guarantees the company gave Ebbers at an interest rate of about 2 percent and secured only by his (now worthless) WorldCom stock."

Now, first off, tell me what any human being can do that could possibly be be worth nearly $6 million dollars a year (not counting the loans). (And don't get me started on professional athletes...) Second, how can anyone who is (for the sake of argument) worth $6 million a year possibly justify NOT knowing what is going on in their company? Corporate executives need to be personally responsible (both financially and criminally) for the activities of their companies. And Corporate Board members need to be personally responsible in the same way for the activities of the individuals they think deserve $6 million a year.

In the end, it is still an issue of personal responsibility. If (in the case of credit card companies I was discussing peripherally yesterday) the executives were personally responsible (both criminally and financially, in amounts that would hurt) for deceptive and misleading credit offers, we might see some different corporate behavior. And while I don't really expect to see that happen, I am no less infuriated by lack of personal responsibility in the corporate world than I am on an individual level.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Friday, March 11 2005 03:41:39 PM

Follow-up
link

First off, I apologize to anyone who has been waiting for my RSS feed. I've had a problem with the feed generator that I can't figure out. I'll try to come up with an alternative, but in the mean time, you will just have to rely on ancient (in internet terms) methods.

Second, my friend over at the Smedley Log has a new URL for his web site. I haven't yet gotten around to changing it on the sidebar, but for now, at least, he still has a re-direct at the old address.

And third, speaking of the Smedley Log, it was there that I was directed to this article on Instpundit. As is often the case with TSL, while I respect his opinion and his ability to voice it without rancor and venom, we continue to (amicably) disagree. While he sees the article detailing bankruptcy attorney opposition as evidence of bi-partisan opposition to a bad law, I see it as evidence that the law might actually reduce the number of bankruptcies. A law that reduces their business would be opposed by bankruptcy attorneys, wouldn't it?

That said, I should again point out something I said yesterday. I am not a financial genius and I will add that I'm not an attorney. This law may, in fact, be a bad law from a legal standpoint. I am in no position to judge that. I just don't oppose the idea behind it. I also don't oppose credit card companies being held accountable for bad business practices, but that isn't the law we are talking about, although it is entirely possible we should be.

It occurs to me that rather than oppose individual accountability, people who believe that bankruptcies are primarily the result of dubious, deceptive and/or downright fraudulent practices by credit card companies should lobby their congressmen to enact legislation outlawing those practices. If "This is clearly an example where the interests of Congress are divorced from the interests of the public. This bill is about politicians and lobbyists, not the American public" then there could be no clearer indication of that than whether or not your legislators respond appropriately and enact legislation outlawing the objectionable practices of the lending lobby. And if your legislators aren't willing to do so, then you would have a pretty clear indication of how you should be voting next election.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Friday, March 11 2005 03:32:25 PM

Bankruptcy and Personal Responsibility
link

I've been listening to the rhetoric on both sides of the arguments being made about the changes to bankruptcy law currently in Congress. I haven't been terribly impressed by either side. It would be nice if we could get past the obligatory posturing and talk about what is really in the proposals.

I say it would be nice, but this is another of those hot-button topics that are nearly impossible to discuss without emotion. Frankly, I'm no different than anyone else in that regard. The principles involved are serious emotional issues for me. I'm going to try to explain why, and then get on to S. 256.

Several years ago I had a couple of credit cards. I was doing pretty well with them; not keeping them paid off, but keeping the balances pretty low. Over time, they (credit card companies) kept sending me new cards and every so often I would accept one, thinking that it wouldn't hurt to have another one "in case of emergency." Next thing I knew, I had a wallet full of credit cards, a growing list of stuff we thought we needed and the means to get it (without the frustrating necessity of saving up for it). I actually managed to juggle the debt without getting in too deep for a couple of years. And, it was nice to be able to get stuff for the family when we wanted it. It felt good. And, we aren't really extravagant people. We didn't buy anything terribly extravagant, we were just living a little bit beyond our means.

Then, the Head Rat's health deteriorated significantly and suddenly and she was unable to continue working. But we both thought it was a temporary problem and that she would be back to work soon. Consequently (and without really thinking it through) we didn't make any changes to our lifestyle for several months. Eventually it became apparent that she was unlikely to ever go back to work and that we were going to continue to have ongoing medical expenses. And, because we had been living significantly beyond our means for a while, we were in over our heads. I struggled on with it, making minimum payments for several months, but in the end, I just couldn't keep up with it. I was getting further and further behind and was getting all the nasty letters and phone calls that go along with being behind on payments.

Anyone who has read this site for a while will know that personal responsibility is the principle that pretty much underlies every other opinion I have. I believe that the freedom to live the way I want has a price and that price is that I am personally responsible for my behavior. I don't want to depend on the government to provide for me because I don't want to be obligated to depend on the government to decide how I should live. A big part of being personally responsible for my own life is that I believe I am obligated to clean up any messes I create in my life. And believe me, my debt situation was a significant mess.

Now, I will freely admit that I considered bankruptcy. But, in the end I couldn't do it. I am an adult and I made the choices that got me in my mess. I just couldn't live with the idea that I would be dumping my mess and absolving myself of the responsibility to clean it up. So, rather than file bankruptcy (which I was advised to do by a number of people), I contacted one of those credit counseling groups. I quit using all of the credit cards (even the ones that weren't close to being maxed out), got them to negotiate a repayment plan and got on about the business of cleaning up the mess.

That was over five years ago. I have one debt I'm still paying on, but otherwise have completely cleaned up the mess. Was it difficult? Yes. Did we do without a lot of things we wanted? Yes. Did we do without some things that we probably needed? Yes. Did we suffer? Yeah, a bit, I guess. Meanwhile, I have watched one family of my in-laws file bankruptcy 3 times in the last 20 years. In between bankruptcies they have had SUV's, boats, RV's, lived in houses bigger than anything I would ever dream of being able to afford, and they are getting ready to do it again.

Why all this personal history? Well, it is just part of my "truth in advertising" policy. Before I make my comments on Senate bill 256, I want you to know that I am not unbiased about the issue and what my bias is, so you can weigh my comments accordingly

Before I go on, I want to make it clear that I am not one of those "I did it, so everyone else can do it" kind of guys. There are people out there who have legitimate reasons to file bankruptcy. I watched my best friend's mother and stepfather get into a hole they couldn't get out of due to some bad luck, bad health and the necessity of living on a fixed income. There was no way they could ever have dug out from under their debt, even with the help of a credit counseling organization. I thought then, and still believe that their bankruptcy was legitimate and justified and I was all for it, for them. There are a lot of people like them out there. There are a lot of legitimate bankruptcies. But there are a lot of folks out there like my in-laws who could repay their debts (or at least a significant portion of them) but won't because they would then be unable to maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed and which they believe they deserve.

In the end, I believe it is that business of feeling entitled to whatever it is people feel they are entitled to that is the heart of the problem. We look around us and see "everyone" has stuff and we believe we are entitled to have that stuff too, regardless of whether we can afford it or not. I have a real problem with this attitude. This is not about me believing I am morally superior to anyone else, I just don't see the world the same way. Call me stupid or anything else you like, but I don't believe I am entitled to anything other than the opportunity to make good for myself. I don't believe I am entitled to a basic living provided by the government. I don't believe I deserve free medical care. I don't even believe I deserve to feel good about myself just because I am me. (Remember, you are unique, just like everybody else...)

Do I believe credit card companies take advantage of our societal delusions of entitlement? Absolutely. Do I think they are offering credit irresponsibly? Without a doubt. Do I think that individuals should be absolved of any financial responsibility because of it? No. Credit card companies extend credit irresponsibly because we as individuals take it, whether we can afford it or not. If we didn't believe we deserve all the goodies we can get without the pain of saving up for them, credit card companies couldn't give away credit cards, and they certainly wouldn't charge 24% interest, because no one would take a card that charged that much. It is, after all (as uncomfortable as this reality is for my seriously liberal friends), a matter of supply and demand. If we didn't gobble up every credit card offered under any terms, the companies offering them would have to be more competitive in terms of interest rates and fees in order to get our business.

On to Senate bill 256. There is a nice summary of the bill here , prepared by a branch of the Library of Congress. I am no financial genius, and there is the possibility that I have misinterpreted some of the provisions of the bill, but frankly, I really don't find anything really objectionable about it. Under the law, people who can't afford (in general) to pay at least $100 a month toward their debts for five years (like my friend's parents) could still file chapter 7 bankruptcy (the kind where you don't have to make payments). Everyone else would have to file chapter 13 bankruptcy, which would require at least a partial repayment plan. People would be able to keep their homes, up to a value of $125,000. I don't know about you, but the idea that someone would have to sell a half million dollar house and live in something more moderate in order to pay off some of their debts really doesn't disturb me all that much. The ideas that domestic support obligations would be moved to the top of the list for payment and that retirement savings (up to a million dollars) would be exempt from your estate for the purpose of calculating your assets both seem acceptable.

In general, I can't find anything to get upset about. Now, if you believe that people are sheep and are incapable of making decisions for themselves, I guess you are pretty much obligated to find fault with this bill. If you believe that people have no responsibility whatsoever for their actions, then it is pretty much a given that you have to believe that consumer debt is the fault of the predatory businesses that take advantage of the childlike innocence and gullibility of the American public. (By the way, if individuals are incapable of being responsible for their actions and their irresponsible behavior is not their fault, why is it that individuals who act irresponsibly and make irresponsible decisions on behalf of a company are predators? Shouldn't their behavior be just as excused as an individual acting on their own behalf, in their own interest? Sorry, I'm just playing Devil's advocate here. Just a thought, maybe for another day.)

If, on the other hand, you believe that individuals are responsible for themselves, their decisions, their choices, their actions and their messes, you probably don't see a problem with this bill becoming law.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Thursday, March 10 2005 11:16:49 PM

link

When I started this nonsense, I had intended to use this as a vehicle to explore my own thoughts and try to get straight in my head what I think about the world. I was hoping to resolve some of the apparent contradictions I thought I thought. I knew then that the only reason for doing this on a web site is that my private journals tend to be a bit whiney. I believed that by posting this stuff on the web site, where other people could (at least in theory) read it, I would tend to reign in the tendency to whine and (hopefully) focus on trying to express clearly what I thought.

All-in-all, I don't think I've done a particularly horrible job. It just seems to me that somewhere along the way, I kind of lost sight of my original purpose. Somewhere, I lost the explorative quality and started thinking in terms of definitive answers. Given that definitive answers is exactly what I mostly don't have, this would appear to be a problem. And I don't really have a solution.

I considered closing up shop, taking the web site down, and just letting things ride for a while. In the end, that just seemed like the easy way out. I've got enough ready-made excuses for not writing; things I've talked about here and some I haven't. It would be really easy to justify. But I have historically gravitated toward the path of least resistance and for some reason (perhaps just that I'm getting older) it seems really important to me not to do that this time.

So, for good or for ill, I am still at it. If I can maintain my focus, there will be a little more exploration and a little less pontification. Or maybe not. After all, an ounce of pretension is worth a pound of manure.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Monday, March 07 2005 12:44:25 AM

HST
link

It is, perhaps, something of a measure how little time I have not been working in the last few weeks that I just found out last night that Hunter S. Thompson killed himself almost two weeks ago. I'm sure there are some eloquent obituaries out there. I have nothing, really, to say about it other than it is just another of the icons of my mis-spent youth, gone.

by Cziltang 
Posted: Wednesday, March 02 2005 08:47:47 PM